Marion told me it would be on the website, maybe in an hour, maybe from John Tate but she's not sure.

pcosmar

01-29-2010, 12:17 PM

Nothing, Yet/Still

hotbrownsauce

01-29-2010, 12:23 PM

Straight from C4L website.

The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization. A "501(c)(4)" is an organization not organized for profit and operated "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." It is essentially a tax designation. There are many different tax categories for political organizations, each with its own pros and cons. In our case, the pros include having no limit on the amount that individuals may donate, while cons include a restriction from endorsing political candidates. Those who would like to donate to an organization that can support political candidates should donate to a Poltical Action Committee (PAC) such as the Liberty PAC. Donations to 501(c)(4)'s are NOT tax deductible.

MsDoodahs

01-29-2010, 12:29 PM

This is so ridiculous.

TELL THE FRIKKEN TRUTH, JOHN TATE.

RonPaulCult

01-29-2010, 01:31 PM

Statement Concerning C4L's Issue Discussion Program

Posted by John Tate on 01/29/10
Last updated 01/29/10

Throughout 2010, Campaign for Liberty will be running an issue discussion program through our candidate surveys in every state to promote our issues and agenda and to lobby candidates for federal office and to get them on the record in support or opposition on our issues.

Since our inception, we have had many requests from our members for such an effort to help in their work to educate those around them.

As part of this program, mail, radio and TV ads, banner ads, and other forms of communication may be run to encourage candidates to go on record in support of our Liberty agenda, to highlight the responses of the candidates on our issues, and to hold those candidates who ignore our cause accountable.

There have been some questions as to why certain candidates have received surveys while others haven't. This is simply a matter of putting in place a systematic approach based on candidate filing deadlines and clear survey response deadlines in order to send out surveys in an organized fashion.

For example, Texas candidate surveys have been mailed, and Kentucky surveys will be mailed next week. Illinois survey results are already available on our web site.

As we launch this new undertaking, I also want to take a moment to address your inquires about one of our first public survey ads in Colorado.

First, I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate. In our survey program, we seek only to report where candidates stand in regard to the specific questions to which they have responded.

In retrospect, the ad we are running could have been messaged differently to help avoid any confusion on its intent and to better advertise our issue discussion program. Your invaluable feedback will help us correct this in the future and, as a result, strengthen the effectiveness of our program. This is C4L's first foray into launching this kind of national initiative, and we are convinced it has the potential to make a tremendous impact.

The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.

We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us.

That being said, there is an even more important fact: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.

So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon, and second, we did NOT use any money raised generally by Campaign for Liberty to run these ads in Colorado.

In order to both launch the Colorado effort and test our survey program, C4L did not use existing donor funds but built new support and donations, especially within Colorado, specifically for this project. This is the approach we hope to take as we seek funding for many other special projects this year in other states.

I take our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to me to run this organization very seriously. I hope you all know that, and can give us here at C4L the benefit of the doubt when a situation arises about which you might want more information, or with which you even might not agree. As a multi-issue organization with activists from all manner of backgrounds, we each certainly will have our share of disagreements and agreements. The critical question is whether or not we will let disagreements on occasional topics destroy the unity we share in our desire to be a free people.

This movement has a unique window of opportunity to change politics in our country and restore our lost liberties. But to accomplish this, it will take our unified effort and focus. I see great things for us in 2010 and beyond if we can do that. I hope I'll have your support as we continue our campaign for liberty.

devil21

01-29-2010, 01:44 PM

I guess it's not terrible but Im curious to know how a local CFL branch raised $350K to spend on a pro-war candidate ad.

LittleLightShining

01-29-2010, 01:44 PM

It is terrible.

devil21

01-29-2010, 01:54 PM

It is terrible.

Not really, at least if the contents of the message are accurate. I don't have a problem with people spending money out of their own pocket to support whoever they want. That was the biggest issue for me, if national CFL paid $350K out of national donations for the ad. I don't have much to do with CFL so the rest is mostly noise and spin that I don't particularly care about. We've never relied on the national org for much anyway and that won't change.